CIVIL GOVERNMENT
——————————
Preface
The subject of civil government is, in all its
aspects, of no little importance. It occupies a large share of men’s thoughts
in all enlightened countries, and awakens, just now, the liveliest concern. This
is not strange; for its influence is felt in every department of human action.
It has to do with the peace, the order, the material prosperity of the
commonwealth; with the rights and liberties of the citizens, and exercises no
inconsiderable influence upon the interests of morals and religion. In all
these respects, in the last particularly, the institution of civil government is deserving the attention of the Christian and of the
Christian minister. Moreover, the inspired
6
writers take occasion, not infrequently, to state, sometimes
summarily in the doctrinal form, and sometimes in narrative and in detail,
leading principles by which the intelligent and faithful may be directed as to
the part which they are to take in setting up, in administering, or in
supporting political constitutions. Hence, no apology is necessary in entering
upon such an examination as that which is now proposed. The topic itself is of
great moment, and the light and authority of God’s Word are before us.
Again:
these researches are imperatively called for, inasmuch as the particular
passage to which the attention of the reader is asked — Romans 13: 1 – 7 — has
been grievously perverted. One class of expositors endeavor
to derive from these teachings of Paul the offensive principle of unresisting,
unquestioning subjection to civil authority of whatever stamp. Rulers, say
they, may be ungodly, tyrannical, immoral, —they may subvert the liberties, and
take away the rights of their subjects. Still, but one course is open;
7
even to such rulers and to such authority, there must be
yielded at least a “passive obedience;” no “resistance” is ever lawful, though
made by the entire body of the oppressed, and that under peril of eternal
damnation: for “the powers that be are ordained of God; and he that resisteth
the power receiveth unto himself damnation.”
This
principle was a very prominent topic among the controversies that arose in
8
take measures for the prevention of tyranny and of an
arbitrary power over the rights of the subjects. All these, including such men
as Burnet and Hoadly —while they vindicated monarchy as the best form of
government, in this agreeing with their opponents, were no less vehement in
asserting and also in proving that the apostle’s doctrine implied certain
limitations; that it must be interpreted so as not to conflict with the plain
dictates of reason, or the liberties of nations. This form of the controversy
regarding this celebrated passage, has passed away.
Even
9
and influence in church and state into popish hands,
these conscientious defenders of an absolute divine right took the alarm, and
refused to be bound by their own repeatedly asserted doctrines. After the
Revolution, this principle did not outlast that generation which felt itself chagrined at the toleration of dissenters from the
established religion. They had fought at a disadvantage, and lost ground. A new
generation arose, and at last, as a topic of controversy, the subject was
dropped, and hence, whatever private views may have been since entertained by
the more bigoted loyalists and ecclesiastics, it has long ceased to figure in
the annals of literature.
However,
even the “exploded” doctrine of “non-resistance” has not entirely succumbed. It
has found a place in the commentaries of Haldane and Chalmers, and still
lingers in some minds; at least, in the form of doubts as to the propriety and
lawfulness of setting aside institutions and men —by violence, if necessary,
—that have proved themselves incompetent to answer the ends of political
arrangements and authority.
10
There is another
class of expositors, embracing a large proportion of the more modern, and some
of the ancient, commentators; who, while they admit that while nations may
remodel their constitutions so as to suit themselves, and even resort to
violence for the overthrow of tyrannical power —in other words, they admit the
right of revolution —still hold and teach, as the doctrine of this passage,
that so long as a government exists, whatever be its character, it is entitled
to, and may demand, in the name of God, a conscientious obedience to its laws,
unless they conflict with the laws of God.
This is a
view highly plausible and popular, and yet to say nothing, at present, of its
inconsistency, (for, how could there be a revolutionary movement, unless
conscience had previously ceased to feel any obligation to respect and honor
and fear the existing government?) it will appear in the sequel that it gains
no countenance from the teachings of Paul, and for the reason that the passage
makes no reference, as we think will appear upon strict examination of its
terms, to any
11
“power” but that which
answers in some good measure the ends of its institution. Whatever may be the
regard, if any, due to an immoral and tyrannical, and, of course, hurtful
government, this passage makes no reference to it. It teaches one set of
truths, and one only, —the nature, functions, and claims of a good government.
In the language of Bishop Hoadly: “As the apostle’s words stand at present, and
have ever stood, it is impossible to prove that he had in view any particular
magistrate acting against the ends of his institution;” and again, “All that we
can possibly collect from his (Paul’s,) injunctions in this place is this, that
it is the indispensable duty of subjects to submit themselves to such governors
as answer the good ends of their institution. There is nothing to make it
probable that Paul had any governors particularly in his eye, who were a terror
to good works and not to evil, or that he had any other design in this place
but to press submission to magistrates, upon those who acknowledged none to be
due in point of conscience, from the end of their institution, and
12
the usefulness of their office. And in whatever instances
submission can be proved to be due from this argument, I am ready to
acknowledge that Paul extended it to all such instances. But as for submission
in other instances, the apostle’s reasoning here cannot defend or justify it,
but rather implies the contrary. For if submission be a duty because
magistrates are carrying forward a good work, the peace and happiness of human
society, which is the argument Paul useth, it is implied in this that
resistance is rather a duty than submission, when they manifestly destroy the
public peace and happiness.*”
We are
aware that the truth of these assertions remains to be proved: their truth will
appear in the analysis of the passage, but we would now state it distinctly and
emphatically, for it is the key to the right understanding of this, and
parallel passages. Keeping this in mind, the scope and bearing of Paul’s
doctrine on civil government and
————————————————
*Hoadly’s Submission to the Powers that be; pages 49,
22, 50.
13
submission o authority, is as clear as a sunbeam. He gives no
countenance to any slavish doctrine —to any claim of divine right to do wrong
—to any principle that would tie up our hands, or in the least interfere with
the right of the Christian citizen to “prove,” by moral and scripture rules, as
well as by the laws of self-preservation, any and all institutions and laws. In
what light we are to regard tyrannical and ungodly powers, we may ascertain
elsewhere, but cannot here, except, and the exception is important, that
inasmuch as Paul gives us the character of government, as God approves it,
and then enjoins subjection, we can pretty directly infer that in case a
government does not possess, at least, a due measure of the requisite
qualifications, the command to obey cannot apply to it.
A greater
interest is, moreover, to be attached to such investigations as we propose,
from the fact that infidels of our times make use of this passage to serve
their own purposes. We live in an age and country of liberal ideas regarding
government —an age
14
when the rights of the people are watched with the utmost
sagacity and vigilance. —Popular rights are matters taken for granted, and
anything that runs counter to them is at once rejected. Infidelity attempts to
turn this feeling in behalf of liberty into its own channel —to rouse it
against the Bible, as if it favored absolute and irresponsible power; and they
avail themselves, and with no little success, of the mistaken exposition of the
very passage before us. The expositors to whom we have referred intend to
strengthen the arm of any and all civil authority —these interpretations the
infidel school use for the overthrow of the authority of the Bible. Both are
met and foiled by one process —simply by a just analysis of the passage itself.
This we
now proceed to attempt, hoping to demonstrate, on the one hand, that a good
government finds here both a guide and a pillar —and on the other, that a bad
government finds not the faintest shadow of countenance, but is inferentially,
but not the less effectually, condemned.